Tuesday, September 8, 2009

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33)

Today another court hearing is being held with respect to the effort to get at the truth concerning Barack Obama's Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Obama faction representatives at the U.S. Justice Department are moving to quash the possibility of any serious investigation of the relevant facts. With respect to the hearing before Federal Judge David Carter, involving "attorney Orly Taitz and numerous plaintiffs", including me, an article at WND.com reports that "In a motion filed Friday in Santa Ana, Calif., attorneys for the government did not directly address the merits of Taitz's claims, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office."

It's ironic. Today Obama will address America's school children. Many parents have expressed their anger over what they regard as an effort to seduce their children into the Obama personality cult being assiduously promoted by the Obama faction's media claque. However, Newsmax.com reports that noted Republicans Newt Gingrich (Gingrich: Obama School Speech Good Idea) and Laura Bush (Laura Bush backs Obama on School Speech) have no problem with the speech. Gingrich says "It is going be a totally positive speech. If that is what it is, it is good to have the president of the United States saying to young people across America stay in school and do your homework. It's good for America." The former first Lady declares that it's "really important for everyone to respect the president of the United States."

Such 'business as usual' niceties beg a simple question, however. Why should the citizens of the United States have more respect for Barack Obama than he has for the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, by whose authority he claims to be President of the United States? Thanks to the Declaration of Independence, the United States is not Great Britain. Unquestioning deference to titles and the trappings of office has never been the basis for the respect Americans have for the President or any other official. In and of themselves such officials are no better than anyone else.

We respect the just form of government established by the Constitution. Those authorized by the Constitution to occupy and carry out the offices (duties) it establishes are the beneficiaries of this formal respect. Beyond that, we owe them no more or less respect than we accord to any other citizens, or for that matter expect to be accorded ourselves.

As they come to understand the facts of the situation, a growing number of Americans seriously doubt that Barack Obama is in fact authorized by the U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States. The Constitution requires that to be eligible for that office an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States. We would reasonably expect an individual sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States frankly and voluntarily to submit any and all information necessary to establish compliance with its terms. Instead when confronted by questions concerning the circumstances of his birth, Barack Obama has refused to take the simple step of releasing for proper scrutiny the document that should allay all concern. He has gone further. By every legal means at his disposal he has sought to prevent release and scrutiny of any and all evidence that might bear on the facts of his birth, or his claims of citizenship at various stages of his life.

But he has not been content to shirk his own sworn duty. Through his personal attorneys, and the U.S. Justice Department's lawyers he has relied on elitist arguments that subvert the long recognized right of the people "to appeal to the standard they have formed", i.e., the Constitution of the United States, and seek by reasonable and proper means to secure respect for its provisions. According to these arguments, Americans must be part of some special and privileged class in order by legal means to seek redress against individuals whose self-serving dereliction of duty assaults the integrity of the Constitution and thus damages the whole body politic. In order to protect himself from scrutiny, Obama seeks to cut off all peaceful and legal means to call him to account for his evident evasion of the Constitution's requirements. Apparently, he cares more for the peaceful enjoyment and security of his own ambition for power than he does for the Constitutional agreement on which the domestic peace and security of the nation depends. Indeed, he and those willing to defend or acquiesce in his dereliction have quietly relied upon the tacit threat that, if not sustained by legal maneuvering, his evasion of the Constitution's requirements will be enforced by means that transgress the boundaries of civil peace. "There will be riots in the streets."

Thankfully Orly Taitz and the people she represents have more respect for that Constitutional agreement than Obama does. Despite legal setbacks; despite vicious name calling and other attempts to dehumanize and degrade them; despite studied efforts to ruin their reputations and deprive them of their jobs and other means of support, they persevere in the effort, by peaceful and legal means, to secure a serious and respectful inquiry into the facts that must be evaluated in order to honor the Constitution's eligibility provision according to its terms.

It is more than just a sad day when the peaceful efforts of people seeking simply to preserve the basis for civil order and peace can be thwarted and repressed by others quietly willing to rely on tacit threats of civil disorder. There was a time when it was understood that one of the virtues required of judges and others sworn to uphold the Constitution was the courage to do so despite such mobocratic terrors. Of course, such courage has been wanting before in America's history, when racist lynch mobs went about their deadly efforts to discourage and repress the citizen rights of black Americans. Now is cowardice come again, only this time surrendering the rights and Constitutional sovereignty of the whole American people?

44
comments:

I am anxious to hear how this case goes today. I am watching the noon news and they keep showing King Hussein's "speech" to our poor school children (I would be SICK on my first day) but have not said ANYTHING about the court case. Funny...

If those weak minded people want a fight then bring it on. Put up or SHUT UP. I do not know too many down here in the South that are worried about fighting - we lost plenty of ancestors a few years back in another war... and afterward as the government pretended to "reconstruct" while they found not ONE way to bring black folks into the Union gracefully after they had so "valiantly" freed them... Now their grandchildren use and manipulate the grandchildren of the slaves to win elections while those same politicians keep them in ignorance and poverty...

I do not advocate violence, but I do not run from someone trying to steal my life from me either. I am an AMERICAN. Not an Islamic woman who is just gonna lay in the street while some pervert man beats me for getting raped. Most members of Congress could use a good slap in the back of the head anyway...

I hope and pray that GOD sends a message to our country today through that court case by revealing more to us than just the birth certificate. I hope HE pours HIS never ending light on the entire travesty.

something just doesn't sit right with all this, does it. God and time will have to show us the truth. As long as God is recognized as controlling it all, and know that everything will be ok, it will work itself out with those He touches to do what needs to be done. Like you've done for us Alan Keyes. Again, I wish you were on the ballot November 2008. I definitely would have voted for you instead of McCain. Being older I realize it's what you don't see and hear that influences circumstances than what is presented. Be Blessed in helping us with the Truth.

When I read that Newt Gingerich and Laura Bush were "happy" that Obama was addressing the nation's children it made me wonder if they know something that most of us don't. For example, I wrote the following on my blog:

I have had some thoughts about what Obama is hiding. Could it be that his "father" - Obama Sr. - learned that another man impregnated Stanley Ann and that Obama Jr. was not his son? Could this have led to Obama Sr. leaving the child and mother so abruptly to continue his education?

I tried to find out what year the first paternity DNA test was ever done. In one obscure article, the date was 1986. Does anyone know if that date is correct?

Many bloggers have covered Obama's eligibility issue. Some (like me) have even speculated that Obama Sr. is not Obama Jr.'s real father. I still think that if true - it would explain a lot.

1. It would explain why Obama Sr. left the mother and child so abruptly to attend school. Could it have been a blood test that revealed he wasn't the real father?

2. It would explain why Obama is hiding so many of his papers. Any one of them could reveal what he is desperately trying to hide.

3. It would explain why Obama had no contact with his father for all those years - except for the one photo of them together when he was a child (looked about 7 yrs. old?)

4. It would explain why Obama was so close to Frank Marshall Davis and labeled him as his "mentor" in one of his books. Perhaps he was his real father?

5. It would explain why Obama hasn't helped any of his so-called Kenyan relatives; or his "brother" who lives in a hut.

Oh...never mind. This is all just speculation. But if an American (i.e. Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X Little) is Obama's biological father, then that might explain why the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Dept., Secret Service, and any other scrutinizing organization is not concerned about his eligibility for POTUS.

But then again - why would someone go to such lengths (and huge expense) to hide his true, biological father's identity?

Re: "Barack Obama has refused to take the simple step of releasing for proper scrutiny the document that should allay all concern."

Obama has released and shown to both FactCheck and Polifact the official birth certificate of Hawaii. http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html, and the facts on that birth certificate have been confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html) and there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)

The Wall Street Journal commented: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

smrstrauss:I congratulate you on assiduous adherence to the leftist tactic of repeating a lie no matter how often or thoroughly it has been refuted. By now, though, the ranks of those ignorant enough to be taken in are dwindling.As usual, nothing counters the simple argument that proof that one is eligible for the highest Constitutional office requires and deserves the best evidence available, not non-corroborative internet postings and unsubstantiated hearsay. The evidence should then be reviewed and decided upon by Constitutionally valid authorities. But how can anyone review evidence that is not being made available for scrutiny?I don't know why Obama is thus defying the Constitution, -and neither do you- but for the sake of our nation's civil peace and constitutional liberty I and others will continue to press for the truth.

Re: "proof that one is eligible for the highest Constitutional office requires and deserves the best evidence available..."

Since NO president before Obama has ever proven that he was eligible, are you saying that they all violated the Constitution?

In fact, Obama has shown and posted the official birth certificate of a US State. And the officials of the State have said that the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is in the official file. This is far more proof than any president has ever provided before.

However, if you are not satisfied with the official birth certificate of Hawaii. There is a move underway by some Democrat legislators in Hawaii to make all the birth files of a president born in Hawaii public documents. Support that move. It will provide the best evidence possible, and it will show that Obama was born in Hawaii, confirming what the two officials said and what the witness said.

There are already birthers saying that the only reason the Democrats are proposing making the birth files public is that Obama has created a "perfect forgery" that he has slipped into the file.

By the way, did you ask McCain to provide proof of his place of birth? He might not be able to prove it. ("Curiously enough, there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain. Washington Post, may 2, 1008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224_2.html

And yourself, did you put your birth certificate online and had it checked by anyone?

As for the Constitutionally valid authorities. The Constitution requires Congress to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, which it did. Presumably the Electors within the Electoral College have the right to vote against anyone who they believe may not be a Natural Born Citizen. There was a campaign to contact all the Electors with all the claims that Obama was not a citizen, and not one of the Electors of the 365 that Obama won changed her or his vote.

@smrstrauss, I'm trying to understand the objections of those who feel this case is closed. Being new to this issue myself, please bear with me in my questioning.

Can Barak Obama request from Hawaii the documents that help to prove, beyond doubt that he is eligible for the office of President?

If so, why hasn't he done so? It would seem (at least now) quite necessary to salve the public's conscience ("Do we have an ineligible President?")? On the surface, it seems very unnecessary and in this case irresponsible to withhold the evidence reasonably requested by those whose constitution he has sworn to uphold.

That no other president has had to comply in a similar fashion seems to be irrelevant; what they have or have not done holds no bearing against what the Constitution mandates. I think it is recklessly wrong for Barak Obama to resist those who reasonably and simply request that which would prove his eligibility.

Indeed, if Barak Obama wants to end this debate, Orly Taitz and Dr. Keyes are his greatest allies; in pursuing this investigation of his eligibility, they would dispel the notion that his candidacy and presidency are illegitimate...if he would but step from their path.

So far, I'd say that courage has prevailed! The courage of Justice Carter! Here is the latest from The Obama File:

Quote:

From The Courtroom -- The Latest

The Give Us Liberty blog is blogging from the courtroom. At 9:26 AM there was no visible media turnout for this hearing as in no SatCam uplink trucks.

At 10:02 Justice Carter noting the packed courtroom and overflow crowd waiting in the hallways has ordered a change to a larger courtroom and has taken a 2 hour recess to accommodate the transfer of officers of the court and spectators.

The estimated age range of those present is 18 to 80 -- 70% Men -- 30% Women -- age 60+ seems to be the majority.

Attorney Orly Taitz appeared relaxed -- calm cool and collected.

Justice Carter recessed the court at 12.30 pst 9/8/09 -- his rulings:

10/5/09 Defense Motion to Dismiss (MTD) to be heard -- Judge Carter indicated only a very strong compelling reason would move him to dismiss at this point. He will review the defense's 9/4/09 MTD. He wants to hear the case on it's merits. Discovery to be ordered 10/5/09 if Motion to Dismiss is thrown out.

Re: "Can Barak Obama request from Hawaii the documents that help to prove, beyond doubt that he is eligible for the office of President?'

The legal birth certificate of Hawaii proves beyond doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii and hence is eligible. Obama has posted this and shown it to FactCheck and Polifact.

There is a Republican backed piece of legislation in the US Congress asking future presidential candidates to show their birth certificates. What birth certificates--the original one or the official one? The official one, which is what Obama has shown.

You ask can Obama request the documents? By this I assume you mean can he request the original birth certificate. The answer is that he can request, but that Hawaii will not necessarily send it, and it probably will not send it because it sends out only the official birth certificate, which is what Obama has already posted. So, who is responsible for not showing the original birth certificate? Hawaii. Obama cannot post what he does not have.

The result of this situation is that there are several reasons why Obama would not ask for the original: (1) it is unnecessary because what he has already shown is the official birth certificate; (2) it would be embarassing to ask Hawaii for something that they might refuse to give; (3) the only reason to ask for the original, since the official certificate is sufficient, is to please the birthers, whom Obama has no need or desire to please.

Re: "On the surface, it seems very unnecessary and in this case irresponsible to withhold the evidence reasonably requested by those whose constitution he has sworn to uphold.'

He is not withholding anything. It is Hawaii that sends out only the Certification of Live Birth. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Certification of Live Birth. It is the official birth certificate, and the two officials in Hawaii have checked twice to confirm that there is an original birth certificate in the file, and they have stated that having an original birth certificate in the file (at a time when foreign birth certificates could not be be registered in Hawaii) means that he was born in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

Re: "what they have or have not done holds no bearing against what the Constitution mandates."

The constitution does not actually require proof. There is nothing in writing that says that a candidate has to show a court or Congress that she or he was born in the USA. THAT is the reason that no president has shown anything so far.

The US Congress has certified that Obama won the election and no member of Congress said later that he or she would have voted against Obama because there was no proof that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

In fact, since the official birth certificate has been published and twice confirmed and there is a witness, there is a great deal MORE proof that Obama was born in Hawaii than that FDR was born in New York or JFK in Massachusetts.

Re: "wrong for Barak Obama to resist those who reasonably and simply request that which would prove his eligibility."

But Obama HAS provided the official birth certificate of Hawaii.

What makes you think that the official birth certificate, whose facts have been twice confirmed, is not proof? Why not accept what the Wall Street Journal concludes: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

What ever you are smoking and/or drinking that makes you come up with AND REPEAT this nonsense on this site - you CAN get help. PLEASE get it. Stop trying to come onto this site and write like you are writing to people who believe such foolishness. This is not the huff and puff post, dumbball or some other loony tune commie site. WE DON'T WANT TO READ THAT JUNK...

Anyone with an ounce of FIRST grade education knows that you do not spend MILLIONS of dollars to hide things that you SHOULD be proud to share WITH THE WORLD. Something in the milk ain't cream buddy, and if you believe it is then YOU drink it. WE here at Loyal To Liberty AIN'T BUYING IT.

Who in the world thinks that after all this time and all this money, all the names, threats, insults, etc. - and this so called president has the power to put this to rest but does not - that there is not SOMETHING very odd and disturbing about such behavior. ESPECIALLY from someone who claims every FIVE minutes to be the president... NO respect for the office...

AND HE SAID HE WAS GONNA BRING HOPE AND CHANGE... He's nothing but a goon and I believe like Larry Sinclair told Dr. Manning - he is a slick talking, con artist hustler.

I am NOT too thrilled that we have been put off ONCE again until next year now? Is that true Dr. Keyes?

I don't think Judge Carter put the matter off. On the contrary he has placed it on his docket for trial. The intervening time gives all parties the opportunity to prepare their arguments. Part of that preparation involves gathering evidence relevant to the case and to the arguments they intend to make. Dr. Taitz can ask the court to subpoena relevant records, including the long form birth certificate the state of Hawaii has refused to release and documents that show what citizenship Obama claimed at other points in his life. Witnesses can also be contacted and brought in for the trial, perhaps including the Kenyan relatives.I think fear of the Court's authority to facilitate evidence gathering is the main reason the Obama faction's lawyers have wanted to avoid a trial on the substance.BTW, please have patience with folks like smrstrauss. I've noticed that Obama faction apologists have little respect for the intelligence of others. (He thinks for instance that we didn't notice the sleight of hand involved in claiming that the State of Hawaii only ever issued the uninformative certification of live birth as "official", when in fact it was only a few weeks ago that Hawaii changed the policy that refused to accept it as adequate proof of native birth.) smrstrauss is like the apparatchiks in the old Soviet Union who, once the Commie Party declared people "non-persons", dutifully denied the their existence. When you worship the creature in lieu of the Creator, truth is whatever the State wants you to believe.I wouldn't want to discourage such people from visiting here. You or someone else who loves truth may influence them for good. After all, God is not willing that even one should be lost. Perhaps they are drawn here by the scent of living water. I hope and pray it is so.Alan Keyes

Re: "spend MILLIONS of dollars to hide things that you SHOULD be proud to share WITH THE WORLD."

Obama has shared his official birth certificate from Hawaii with the world and the facts on it have been authenticated by the two officials in Hawaii, twice.

There has never been a case against Obama (there was one against Hawaii in which Obama was not involved) that simply asked for records. All the cases before the election were to stop the election. Most of the cases after the election were to stop certification of the election or to stop the inauguration.

Of the remaining cases none is simply for records. All allege that Obama would not be eligible to be president even if he proved his birth in Hawaii (which he did) because his father was not a US citizen. You may feel that he is not eligible because his father is not a US citizen, but the facts are that Obama is not spending money fighting cases that simply ask for him to release information.

Frankly, I do not know why the birthers do not file a case against Obama that simply asks him to disclose his original birth certificate. He can reply that he does not have it and then ask the court for a court order to get it. IF Obama were to oppose a case that simply asked for his original birth certificate, THEN you could say that he was fighting the release of his birth certificate.

After commenting last night (early this morning) I went through some back doors and finally came across a site that had a minute by minute "transcript" from yesterday's court proceedings. I could not find anything on any of the major news sites and Google and Yahoo were useless. I was pleased to get more than a couple of lines and now realize that this case is in a VERY good position under a (from what I can gather) honest and serious judge. Thank you for letting me in on your thoughts too, Dr. Keyes.

I do apologize for my lack of patience, Mr. Smrstrauss. Although I would never encourage someone NOT to read on this site (that was not my intention), I do grow tired of reading comments that are not only unsupportive, but also repetitive and baseless. I do not mind a good debate though and will try to temper my comments.

These so called birth certificates you speak of only made the waters murkier. The information on that piece of paper is generic and, as some professionals have said, it is forged. Besides all that, putting a "birth certificate" online is NOT proof of anything in ANY state in our Union. If you think it is and it is good enough for the office of the president of the United States, then YOU try it next time a government agency requires you to show one and see how far you get.

I do not feel things about this travesty, I read and process the information. I have made a judgment. Just like a person uses judgment to see a red light and stop their vehicle, I have seen evidence that not only is Obama HIDING everything about his past and paying millions to do it, but he is also not eligible because if his father is who HE says he is, the man was a Kenyan.

Of course, at the time of this writing, if any in our Congress had a backbone, there is certainly enough criminal activity in the last eight months to impeach him - and probably put him in jail. I am sure THAT will go over real well, but according to the Constitution, he has broken and abused his oath and office on several occasions and levels.

And, as I wrote yesterday, the matter that Larry Sinclair put forward and the way the media and government suppressed that information is troubling. If it were not true, then WHY spend so much money and energy on trying to make it impossible to hear. Someone is hiding something for a reason.

My hope and prayer is that this will be resolved in January and that truth will prevail and the citizens of this country will be given the chance to elect one of their own to represent them AND THE MILITARY in the highest executive office in the US. Now is not the time to have a hustler as our president. We tried that for eight years with Bill Clinton and look where that got us...

Speaking of the Clintons... why is it news that the movie exposing Hillary is going back to court, but this court case about Obama gets NO national air time. Do people not think that is telling in and of itself?

While reading this post at RepubX, the commentary near the end shows us a possible reason why Hawaiian officials have kept up the charade to not release Obama's vault-length COLB.

It will help to read the entire post and view the two documents.

The following paragraphs contain the pertinent information as to why Hawaiian officials would be complicit in the cover-up. It is lengthly, so I will post a few paragraphs. Go to link above to read entire article. I cannot agree with everything in the post because there is much speculation, but I found the following section fascinating and believable:

Quote:

As the trail of life becomes the interstate highway of courtroom trials for our beloved leader, Barack Obama, it is perhaps time to weave the fabric of Barack's Muslim, Kenyan, Indonesian, Hawaiian serape to explain just what he is hiding by hiring his platoon of lawyers. Lets connect the dots, so to speak from the information we already know. This might be what is behind the Berg "sealed" lawsuit.

What is taking place is indeed conspiracy as in the sense of a violation of the RICO Act. This involves the state of Hawaii and Occidental College, if not Columbia of New York and Harvard.

What requires explanation in this is a generation of crime in supplanting the United States for money. It is as simple as that in local government policy being fed huge sums of money at the behest of Ford Foundation incorporating globalist policy into American culture. Barack Obama is simply the tip of this iceberg which he desperately must conceal, along with all these other benefactors - beyond embarrassment, people will go to prison.

The first task in need of explanation is why would Hawaii aid a known illegal of British birth in illegally obtaining a fake birth certificate? The answer is: in 1961 the American public had not yet been herded by Teddy Kennedy and socialists into providing welfare benefits to illegals. Hawaii had a large population of illegals who were slave labor, but were a huge burden to the system in poverty and crime.

The Hawaiian answer, as it was a Democratic state and still is, was to start registering all those foreign kids by the thousands. The purpose being to tap into all those federal hundreds of millions then which would profit the state. All of those poverty programs flowed funds into the pockets of the retailers as the golden goose pipeline. If one makes citizens out of illegals, then Hawaii converts a debt into their asset in obtaining more funds and growing the socialist system which empowers Democratic liberals.

The fact is there are hundreds of thousands of "Barack Obamas" registered in Hawaii. Do you think even a Republican governor sitting on this explosive mess wants any of this coming out? An entire state sold out the United States for filthy lucre, because they were importing Asian slave labor. That does not make a great headline, nor, did they probably ever expect a money train welfare illegal would somehow get himself installed as President which would expose the entire Hawaiian fraud, and you know very well that all of those records would have to be gone through and verified so an Obama repeat would not occur, in all 50 states.

Talk about a nightmare huh? The nightmare would be the removal of Obama under Quo Warrantus which is being attempted now and 49 other states suing Hawaii for the money it would cost to check all of their records over the Hawaiian fraud.

Hawaii has always been a corrupt enclave like Rhode Island. Hawaii was the conduit in the Clinton years to get Chinese communists a stake in the United States Stock Market, to which Hawaii had the first meltdown in this scheme in costing their investors a fortune and ruining their banks. That is why Hawaii is in collusion with Barack Obama. They were involved in massive welfare fraud and do not want this coming out. /quote

Re: "These so called birth certificates you speak of only made the waters murkier. The information on that piece of paper is generic and, as some professionals have said, it is forged. Besides all that, putting a "birth certificate" online is NOT proof of anything in ANY state in our Union."

Taking up the last point first. Of course putting something on line is not proof. However, remember that no president has ever proven that he was born in the USA before. Second, the fact that Obama put it on line and showed the physical certificate to both FactCheck and Polifact is an indication that there is a physical document. And, the fact that the two officials in Hawaii confirmed the facts on the document is also logical proof that there is a physical document and that the key fact, birth in Hawaii, is certain.

So, as the Wall Street Journal put it, if a court asked for Obama's physical birth certificate, Obama would simply show his Certification of Live Birth and that would be proof of his birth in Hawaii, absent any solid proof (such as documents) that he was born somewhere else.

So, as you say, the Certification on line is merely an image of the document, but the evidence is strong that there is a physical document. Why, you may ask, not show it to a court or other body that would confirm its authenticity? Because a court has not asked to see it. Why not? In part because birthers have not filed a suit against Obama simply asking to see the birth certificate. They mix in things like allegations that Obama lost his citizenship or that he was not eligible because his father was not a citizen. The easy way to fight such a list of claims is to have the case thrown out, which Obama has done regularly. (And it is his right under the law.)

However, absent a court asking to see the birth certificate, the situation is that no president has ever shown his birth certificate to a court, nor has any previous president had officials of a state confirm his birth in that state. So this is a great deal more proof than any president so far.

Next, the documents are "forged." This is complete baloney, and I thought more highly of you than to even consider that it is possibly true. First, only two guys who claim to be experts but who will not give their real names have ever said that the COLB was forged. If it were forged, McCain and Hillary and the authorities in Hawaii and the FBI would have been all over the case. Second, the authorities in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the FACTS of the COLB.

As for the COLB being "generic," I suppose you are referring to the allegations that Hawaii issued birth documents to people who were not born in Hawaii. Two things about that. First, it does not, and never has, issued birth documents that say "born in Hawaii" to people who were not born in Hawaii. The COLBs that are issued to people who are not born in Hawaii must say the actual place of birth. So they read something like: "Hawaii COLB. Place of Birth: New Jersey (or whatever)."

Second, the ability of Hawaii to issue a Hawaii birth certificate to people who were born outside of Hawaii was not passed until 1982. That was more than twenty years after Obama's birth. So the original birth certificate in the file cannot be a foreign birth certificate.

Nor, because of the proof of the date of registration given by the two notices in the newspapers, can the original be a delayed birth certificate or a certificate of Hawaiian birth or an amended birth certificate--all of which require delays of months or a year.

I think it is sad that someone on this site is so negative on Hawaii, which seems to me to be a lovely state with a Republican governor. There is corruption in Hawaii as in all places, but it is hard to see how corruption could have affected this situation. The governor of Hawaii and the officials have no motives to lie about the contents of the birth files, and the consequences if they were proven to have lied would be severe. The proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii is overwhelming.

Re: "6. Finally, his paternal grandmother said she was there at his birth. She said it twice. Are you calling her a liar?"

I am saying that she did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. This can be heard easily on the complete Grandmother tape on Berg's site. Wait for the question "Whereabouts was he born?" at about five minutes into the tape, and you will hear the answer: "America, Hawaii." Here is the complete tape: http://obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3

If it is too difficult to hear the tape, here is a transcript of the complete tape: "http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf

So you see, Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. A strange group of people say that she said that he was born in Kenya, but she actually said that he was born in Hawaii, confirming the legal birth certificate of Hawaii and the statements of the two officials in Hawaii and the notices in the Hawaii newspapers.

3. The COLB was given to any resident who claimed the birth of their child up to one year of age. Just on the say-so of one parent.

Not true. If a child were born outside of a hospital, Hawaii required a statement by the doctor or midwife or, if the birth occurred without medical assistance, some witness. But Obama was born in a hospital, as the statement of the witness who recalls being told of his birth confirms (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)

Oh my goodness, Smrstrass... that was just way too much repetition. I mean really... how many times have you written the same comments on this site? Not only is it like you have memorized a script, but I would think you took a cue from the liar in chief and had a teleprompter in front of you.

I was alright until I got to Wall Street Journal and "proof" in the same sentence. You do realize the organizations you are quoting as references believe in relativity in truth? Surely you would not expect anyone to read further?

I hope you are all not watching the liar in chief, by the way. I wanted to just to hear what he had to say, but I cannot do it right after I eat AND they said he was gonna run off at the mouth for at least 45 minutes... please...

I will catch the news brief in the AM. Besides I know he is gonna be repetitive...

I find it very odd that here it is the week of 9/11, and this hustler in chief is talking about "health care" and just got through praising Muhammadans. Boy are we in for a eye opener...

"Second, the ability of Hawaii to issue a Hawaii birth certificate to people who were born outside of Hawaii was not passed until 1982. That was more than 20 years after Obama's birth. So the original birth certificate in the file cannot be a foreign birth certificate."

Huh?

Let me see if I got this straight: Hawaii didn't issue Hawaiian birth certificates to foreign born nationals until 1982 so therefore the birth certificate in the file cannot be of foreign origin?

I suppose it might make sense IF indeed someone has actually seen the long form vault copy listing the hospital and doctor AND if it was an original Hawaiian BC.

Before you respond go to worldnetdaily.com and view an original long form birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii showing ALL the pertinent data. Mother, father, dates, address, NAME OF THE HOSPITAL, NAME OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, etc. Compare it to the online version. I seriously doubt this will change your mind as I can tell your faith is very strong.

Re: "view an original long form birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii showing ALL the pertinent data."

First the fundamentals. No president has ever shown a birth certificate before. Bush didn't. Reagan didn't. None did until Obama.

Obama has posted the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii and shown the physical copy of the document to Polifact and Factcheck. Sure, there is an original birth certificate and it shows additional details, but the one that he post and shown is the official birth certificate. And, it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original.

The additional information on the original birth certificate is nice, but the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate, and when it says on it that a person is born in Hawaii (as it does in Obama's case), it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

This therefore is legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and it is considerably more proof than any president has ever shown before.

I know people that are married and less faithful. What IS it that has you so wrapped up in this con artist? Did you vote for him and are now, like so many, thoroughly disgusted but your pride won't let you say so? You seem to think that justifying your own lack of credible sources with my lack of using any makes you somehow right. I am just here using logic and reasoning. Simple. You are putting forth "evidence." It is good enough for you - fine. Not for me. Great.

You really should think this through though. No matter what you say, what you "believe" or what you read and quote as credible, there is NO denying that anyone who spends millions of dollars to hide EVERYTHING about themselves except their wife and children (and who really knows if that is not just a charade - Larry Sinclair) has a serious problem. And we are talking about the person that calls himself president every 20 minutes or so...

By the way, no other president in our history has been as shady as King Hussein - the liar in chief. Every other president has records that have been accessed and were not hidden and protected by lawyers, judges and the Justice Department. There is a REASON that people like us have questions. And I still think that whatever he posted online was a FAKE and so do MANY others.

Strauss: "Why not discuss the facts? Post some facts showing that Obama was born in Kenya. If you do not have facts, it is YOU who believe in relativity in truth."

FACTS? Don't make me laugh, you pathetic obfuscating Oborter. (Note: I didn't call you stupid - you most likely know the truth but use the Goebbels/Lenin technique to perpetuate the deception).

Anyway, back to the FACTS. Who cares where King Hussein was born. He himself admitted that he was born a British citizen, thus with dual citizenship at birth, his ineligibility for POTUS is carved in stone.

Re: "NO denying that anyone who spends millions of dollars to hide EVERYTHING about themselves...'

Where did you get this myth from? You remember the lawsuits against Obama before the election? They were to stop the election. They were not lawsuits to get Obama to show documents. After the election most of the lawsuits against Obama were to stop the certification of the election or to stop the Inauguration. Again, these were not lawsuits that asked for documents.

Within these lawsuits none that I saw (and I read most of them) even asked Obama to provide his birth certificate or other document to the court.

Of the continuing cases most argue that Obama would not be eligible to be president even if he were born in Hawaii because his father was not a citizen. You may think that this is true and that it should be argued. Fine, but the fact is that such a case is not for documents and Obama is not hiding anything by fighting this case.

So, Obama has not spent millions hiding anything. He showed the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by the two officials of the state. This is more than any previous president ever did.

Some on this Web site who said things like "Hawaii has always been a corrupt enclave like Rhode Island.": and others who said that the Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. They care. Fortunately, the answer is that he was born in Hawaii.

The Constitutional issue of whether someone whose father was not a US citizen is eligible to be president is more emotional than the simple fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Constitution simply says that to be eligible someone must be a Natural Born Citizen. Some think that that means you have to have two US parents.

But it doesn't. Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution referred to the laws in the Colonies at the time, and they held that anyone who was born in a colony was a Natural Born citizen of the colony and a Natural Born subject of Britain. In other words, Natural Born was a synonym for native born. And that is why Obama's birth in Hawaii is important because it means he was native born and hence Natural Born.

As the Wall Street Journal puts it: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

First the fundamentals. No president has ever shown a birth certificate before. Bush didn't. Reagan didn't. None did until Obama.

strauss, you've said this any number of times before, but I'm curious, what exactly are you getting at by this line of argument? Are you trying to say that we're asking too much of Hussein, that we're holding him to a higher standard, or what? I don't quite get the objection given that a lot is known about all of the above, and very little is known about Hussein O. by anyone's comparison, save possibly your own.

Who cares about what other presidents did anyway? They WERE presidents. Why does HE hide everything? AND PAY MILLIONS TO DO SO? When did the Wall Street Journal become a source to be trusted for Constitutional Law. Are you, Smrstrauss, a Constitutional Lawyer or professor? You write as if you REALLY know what the Natural Born statement means and no one else here does - or that we can not read and/or understand it. King Hussein should hire you to represent him because I read his lawyers looked REALLY UNEASY this past week.

LORD willing, their dismissal attempt will be IGNORED next month!

All these things you write about concerning court cases and what not - I am not (personally) concerned. I did not read what they took him to court for AND do not really care. I care that it is obvious to anyone with elementary (pre-80's) education that something is not right here. He is a crook and a swindler and a natural born liar. You have been taken in and seem to revel in it. That is fine for you if you want to live in confusion and hype. I don't get down like that, sorry...

The man has NO legal standing to be the president of OUR country. And I found it odd that the Canada Free Press did a news story on how the Democrats seemingly KNEW he was not legally able to do so when they nominated him. Did anyone else check that out on Steady Drip?

Exactly. The point is that it's simply a dumb argument (or objection, or whatever it is), this tendency to incessantly compare the actions of Hussein Obama and what we require of him, and the actions of Bush, Reagan, et al, and what we required (or didn't require) of them. There was never any question about their natural born U.S. citizen status, thus there was never any question about their constitutional eligibility to serve as POTUS under the Article II Natural Born Citizen clause. And that is to include that leftist scumbag Bill Clinton. But there IS a question about Hussein's eligibility, and pointing out that our legitimate presidents weren't required to provide a valid birth certificate isn't ever going to change that. The complaint is simply irrelevant to the question.

Strauss: "Some on this Web site who said things like 'Hawaii has always been a corrupt enclave like Rhode Island.': and others who said that the Certification of Live Birth does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. They care. Fortunately the answer is that he was born in Hawaii."

Let me repeat: Who cares where King Hussein was born?

Those who do care dismiss the fact that Hussein's dual citizenship precludes him from being a natural born U.S. citizen NO MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN. The hunt for the birth certificate aids Hussein's deception by diverting attention away from the truth.

Strauss, invoke the spirits of the Framers, let them channel through you and let them explain to you the difference between "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

We have not been a constitutional Republic since the Act of 1871 replaced the Framers' original "Constitution for the United States" with a new "CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES", a corporation existing in the District of Columbia, controlled solely by Congress, a government no longer controlled by We the People, subject not to Common Law (the law of the Republic pre-1871), but under Private International Law (refer to the UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C)).

I must have been sick the day they taught this in history class (LOL).

So what does this have to do with Obama's eligibility, you ask? IT'S THE CORPORATION, STUPID!

Under the new, revised Constitution, he IS eligible to be President of the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES.

If what I just wrote is accurate (I can't get an answer from anyone) there is a solution:

THROW THE BUMS OUT IN '10 and replace them with originalists who will restore our true Constitution (unless, God forbid, there is a "false flag" attack before the election and King Hussein declares martial law).

Devvy Kidd states that what I wrote (U.S. is a Corporation, not a sovereign nation) is a line of B.S. That's good enough for me. I wrote it as a trial balloon, hoping it was false, waiting for someone to pop it.

Beware what you read on the net. I am gullible and didn't do my homework. My sincere apologies.

Re: "You write as if you REALLY know what the Natural Born statement means and no one else here does - or that we can not read and/or understand it."

It is you who think you know what Natural Born means. You are wrong.

Natural Born is a synonym for native born. That is why there is the term "naturalized.' It means to make someone like a person who is Natural Born, meaning a person who became a citizen because of her or his place of birth.

Natural Born at the time of the Revolution referred to the laws in the colonies in which someone who was born in a colony was Natural Born regardless of the number of parents who were citizens.

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

These statements fit exactly with the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, which said: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

As was pointed out in the Wong Kim Ark decision: "n U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

In short, the original meaning of Natural Born stems from Natural-Born subject, and meant born in the country. It did not mean two parents from the country.

Re: "what exactly are you getting at by this line of argument? Are you trying to say that we're asking too much of Hussein, that we're holding him to a higher standard, or what?"

I am saying that because a bunch of crazy cranks with a political agenda claim that Obama was born in Kenya, when that is as likely as his being born on Mars, does not mean that there is a valid reason for looking more deeply into his birth certificate than we did into Bush's, Reagan's or FDR's.

Unless you hold that ALL presidents must show their birth certificates, and so far only Obama has, then there has to be a good reason why people ask to see the birth certificate. Otherwise there will be crazy claims against all future presidents.

In this case, no one has shown so far that Obama's mother even had a passport, yet she is alleged to have gone to Kenya. Going to Kenya would have been a difficult and risky thing for a pregnant woman at the time (no direct flights, poorly pressurized planes, the necessity to get a Yellow Fever shot), and yet the crazies claim that Obama's mother did make the trip, gave birth in Kenya and somehow managed to smuggle the child back to Hawaii.

If a child had been born in Kenya in 1961, there would have had to be a US travel document to get the child into the USA. This would have probably been a US visa on a British passport. Or, it could have been a passport issued to the child or a revision of the mother's USA passport. One of the three would have had to have been done while the child was in Kenya to get the child to the USA. IF one of those had been done, there would have been a record of it in US State Department files. But no such document has been found.

The grandmother did not say he was born in Kenya. There is legal evidence, confirmed twice by authorities, that he was born in Hawaii, and yet the crazies still claim that Obama has to prove that he was born in Hawaii, when he has proved it and there is no evidence to the contrary.

This is why I say that no president has proved his place of birth before. In contrast, Obama HAS proved he was born in Hawaii, and there is no evidence to the contrary, and yet the crazies keep making claims.

And let's not assume that Ann Dunham went to Kenya by herself. Her husband would have made the trip with her. And since he was not a U.S. citizen, his travels out of and into the country would have been very closely scrutinized, and documented. (See National Archives.)

But this is a conspiracy of immense proportions! It had to be at least forty eight years in the making. The vastness of it is absolutely astounding! And just for this one irrelevant person.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

Terry Lakin explains seeking Obama eligibility proof

FEATURED LINK

Support This Site

Friends of Liberty:

The content I share on Loyal To Liberty takes a good deal of time and effort to prepare. It's offered in the hope that it will prove helpful to people trying to think through the challenges of faithful citizenship during this time of deep crisis for the republican form of government in the United States.

The site is, as it were, freeware, but of course its maintenance and efforts like the pursuit of the facts about Obama's eligibility eat up a lot of man-hours. Your donation will help me and those who work with me. So please click the button below and help out to whatever extent you can. No amount is too small. When everyone chips in, the 'widow's mite' is mighty. Thank you and Godspeed.(If you would rather send a check or money order make it out to Alan Keyes and send it to: Alan Keyes, PO Box 83759, Gaithersburg, MD 20883.)

THOUGHTLET-The Enemy of my Enemy is ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I've never been sure the old maxim made much sense. It gives your enemies rather too much control over the identification of your friends. What's more, it allows people who really aren't your friends to identify themselves as such just by opposing your enemies. Doesn't that make it easier for your enemies to plant agents in your midst with no more effort than it takes to stage a phony brawl?Because they live in such a hostile media environment, conservatives are all too willing to embrace any media voice that seems to take on their left wing opponents. But this means that at critical moments (particularly when it comes to personnel choices) they will be susceptible to information provided by people who have only been fighting with their enemies in order to get into a better position to do in the people whose sincerity, ability and leadership offer conservatives the greatest promise of success.In this regard I have observed that the most important information conservatives can get from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel is silence: the things and people Fox positively ignores. You can be sure someone you know to be conservative is standing firm for what's right when you can't remember the last time you saw or heard anything positive about them on Fox News. Think of all the reporting they've done on the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency.Listen to the silence. Better yet, learn from it.

Visit Me on Facebook

THOUGHTLET "A little thought (that) goes a long way."

During my service as an Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State under President Reagan, a quiet but constant tug of war went on between the Reagan conservatives and the Bush Republicans, though supposedly all of us were pulling in the same direction.My brief as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations (IO- the bureau that, among other things, keeps track of the goings-on at the United Nations)included implementing Reagan's policy of withholding U.S. contributions to the UN until real management reforms were agreed upon and carried forward.I also got involved with issues that reflected Reagan's principled pro-life stands, and his strong commitment to defend Israel from the Arab inspired lynch mob more or less permanently on call throughout the UN system during those years.

Apparently one of the more polite terms of opprobrium the Bush forces used to pan conservatives like me was that we were excessively "ideological".To tell the truth, I always wore the intended slight as a badge of honor, sinceit signified theirreaction to my consistent efforts to make sure my actions served the ideas and principles Reagan stood for.

Meanwhile whether in or out of power the leftists who control the Democrat party have had no qualms about being "excessively ideological."While the Bush Republicans obligingly kept real conservatives running in place throughout their years of pre-eminence (while sopping them periodically with rhetoric and phony gestures of support), the Democrats looked for ways to promote their agenda of abortion, state atheism, and the erosive destruction of the traditional family (It's the major obstacle to totalitarian government control of the society.)Now that the leftists are surging with confidence, Obama shows no qualms about promoting "excessively ideological" extremists like Chas Freeman and Kathleen Sebelius to positions of controlling authority in the areas where they can do the most harm (from a conservative point of view.)Instead of running in place, they're poised to rush forward, like a good running back exploiting the chink of daylight that signals the way to at least a first down and who knows what more beyond that.

When are conservatives going to wake up and ponder the fact that the acronym for Running In Place is- R.I.P.

Share the Blessings of Liberty

THOUGHTLET

As I consider the reaction to my statement that Obama is a communist, I realize how thoroughly the Obama faction's media claque takes advantage of the ignorance even of those who are supposed to be educated and sophisticated spokespeople for conservative views. In this respect I am somewhat disadvantaged by my relatively small stake in this ignorance when it comes to political theory and ideology. For instance, people tend to associate the term "communist" with the violent takeover of government and society. Yet a thoroughly committed communist like Italy's Antonio Gramsci developed an understanding of the nature of political control, and therefore the path to power over a society, far more sophisticated than Marx's economic determinism. (Or was it in fact a more sophisticated understanding of economics?) It was therefore better suited to understanding and exploiting the "ideological" (i.e., spiritual and moral) vulnerabilities of the opponents of communism. In particular, his theories allowed for far greater use of cultural influences (the news and entertainment media, churches and other religious institutions, movements like "gay rights" that contribute to the destruction of moral institutions like the family, etc.) than some people associate with the term "communism". They helped later leftists to understand, explain and avoid (by learning from and adapting the enemy's tactics) defeats like those that fascism inflicted on mid-twentieth century communism in Italy and elsewhere.Reading Gramsci, one senses that he is looking at the intellectual framework for the Obama faction's secret strategic plan. As Sherlock Holmes knew, there's sometimes no hiding place more secure than one that is in plain sight. Especially in an era when the leftist takeover of education produces fewer and fewer people in each generation who bother to read books, especially the ones without pictures in them. (There's a good summary of Gramsci's thinking at http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm)

THOUGHTLET

Apparently most of the people in Congress who voted on the so-called stimulus package had no time to read it, even superficially. That might seem like fodder for a late night comedy routine, until it occurs to you to wonder who did read it? After all, if the elected representatives of the people are just rubber stamping legislation prepared for them by others, its drafters are the ones dictating the decision. Congress sinks into the role reserved for the People's Congresses in places like North Korea or the now defunct Soviet Union. How quickly the substance of constitutional self-government is being turned into the perfunctory sham characteristic of stolid party dictatorships ruled from the background by a handful of unaccountable little despots.

How many Americans wake up every day longing to live under party dictators, worshiping at the altar of a propagandized personality cult, in a world where party hacks offer the only hope of relief from bureaucratic tyranny? All in exchange for a surfeit of meaningless sex and the license to kill your unwanted offspring.

I used always to think of places under communist yoke as regions languishing under perpetually cloudy skies. Actually though, it wasn't the sun's light it cut off, but the light of true human personality. Would any sane people exchange even the worst risks of life in freedom for such soul stifling banality? Will we?

Liberty Loyalists

Subscribe To Loyal To Liberty

THOUGHTLET

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's not a thought likely to occur to anyone thinking about the banking system these days. It's broke alright. Insolvency is the word of the day, along with that other word, nationalization. Funny how so many people who think the nation state has effectively ceased to exist when it comes to borders and immigration suddenly rediscover its powers when it's time to take over the banks.

"But Alan," you protest "we badly need a solution." Which, I reply, is not a good reason to accept a bad one. In fact , if things have gotten as bad as they say, maybe we should step back so as to let our thinking leap forward.

True, If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. But if it's really broke, you don't fix it either, you throw it away and replace it with something that works better. Instead of taking the bad logic of a failed centralized banking system to its logical conclusion (total centralization), replace the logic with something more suited to the twenty-first century. The twentieth century was all about bigger, more regulated and extensive organization. The hallmark of the twenty-first is the network, the model work-in-progress of which is the internet. It depends on decentralized, individual units, that reach out and form communities based on direct interaction and mutual assessment, rather than a centrally determined distribution of information (like a central bank's fixing the interest rate.)

If the present banking system is failing- let it fail. That's the first step in preparing the way for the emergence of twenty-first century financial networks. Instead of pretending that bankrupt governments can magically save a bankrupt system, accept the fact that the financial Titanic is sinking. Get people out of it, and use what resources we have to construct and launch the fleet of lifeboats in which they can distance themselves from the vortex it causes as it goes down. What I think we'll discover is that the new system we need will emerge from the resulting fleet, as we use twenty-first century tools to turn it into a floating net that won't be susceptible to the cascading disasters of the obsolete vessel. This deserves longer thought, which I give it in the essay Real Change Step Two: Replacing the Federal Reserve.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

THOUGHTLET

I think it's not an accident that the American founders spoke of the people as a body (that is an organic whole), but the leftist proto-totalitarians that tutor socialists like Obama speak of them as "the masses." A mass is composed of conceptually identical parts, whereas the body is an organic whole in which each part is defined and differentiated by its individual purpose with respect to the whole. Is this why there are so many examples of totalitarian regimes that treat people as if they are mounds of dirt to be shaped and repressed, used or discarded (killed) without respect for their individuality? This totalitarian mentality finds a counterpart in the approach that claims to deal with human affairs scientifically, on the assumption that people are no different than other merely physical things.

Here is an audio compilation of the Thoughtlets I post every now and then. I'm making them available as a podcast at http://loyaltoliberty.podbean.com/. They are also accessible as an audio feed. Visit the site, and spread the word. The little thoughts are now consumable as little soundbites. They could be a great way to introduce Loyal to Liberty to people you know.

THOUGHTLETS (Podcast)

About Your Host

For a long while I have been involved in government, politics and citizen activism. I am Christian, Catholic, Pro-life and pro-liberty. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the republican form of government it establishes. I uphold and seek to preserve the sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect; For God, Liberty and the Constitution.

THOUGHTLET

What signals the difference between a "socialist" and a "communist"? It's the gradual repression of political and civil liberty culminating in the open prosecution and suppression of dissident views. But this suppression cannot come about until a monopoly has been established over access to the seats of government executive and decision making power. The key manifestation of this monopoly is of course some form of party dictatorship.

Aside from all the evidence in his known background, associates, policy preferences and political actions one of the main reasons I make bold to call Obama a communist is his grab for unchecked partisan control over the conduct of the next census. Skillful manipulation of the census could make the decisive contribution to establishing an electorally unchallengeable party monopoly, which would then provide the basis for consolidating party dictatorship. If such dictatorship were not part of their agenda, the Obama faction would leave ultimate oversight of the census process where the Constitution places it, in the hands of the legislative branch. As it clearly is part of their agenda, only ignorance or willful stupidity blinds people to Obama's ambition to establish a better tailored version of Soviet-style government in the U.S.

Of course, there may be another name for what keeps some of the so-called Republicans from speaking out about it. Could it be cowardice?

Copyright Regulations

All material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog.

Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty

You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog.

Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website.

Only excerpts of less than 100 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included.

Noncommercial Usage. You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes.

Derivative Works. Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made.

If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website,permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

THOUGHTLET

Everyone's fussing over whether the Alleged Usurper's stimulus plan will help or hurt the economy. Are they missing the point? Massive taxpayer resources are being pumped into Obama's powerbase. His cohorts grow stronger, while the larger economic impact of the plan makes everyone else weaker. Not much of a recovery plan, but a great strategy for securing power.

Then there are all those Hamas loving Palestinians he's using taxpayer money to bring to the U.S. After 9/11 the Palestinians danced in their streets. This time they won't have far to go to dance on our graves.